Some of our Dharma brothers and sisters over there are upset that this is sectarianism, perhaps because he praises the Pali Suttas as being 'original Buddhism.' But Bhante also talks against culture and dogma, even if it is from Burma or Sri Lanka.

I thought Meindzai gave some great responses in support of Bhante Punnaji and the subject of the talk is related to many of the recent topics here about the Commentaries and early Buddhism.

Some of our Dharma brothers and sisters over there are upset that this is sectarianism, perhaps because he praises the Pali Suttas as being 'original Buddhism.' But Bhante also talks against culture and dogma, even if it is from Burma or Sri Lanka.

I thought Meindzai gave some great responses in support of Bhante Punnaji and the subject of the talk is related to many of the recent topics here about the Commentaries and early Buddhism.

Well not surprisingly, I agree here with venerable Punnaji's assessment.

Thanks for sharing, David.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

Thank you for the posting the video.And I agree that the Pali Suttas is original Buddhism.The only thing that matters is the direct teaching of the Awakened one (and sincere practice according to it).All the other interpretation and exotic decorations are irrelevant because it did not come from the mouth of our teacher.Very few are following the correct path based upon right view.Metta.

Well not surprisingly, I agree here with venerable Punnaji's assessment.

Thanks for sharing, David.

Metta,Retro.

Oh Retro, I just saw your post in Dharma Wheel, and I have to say your avatar there does not become you!

I can fully sympathise with your views there, but I wonder if you've noticed that every time "Early Buddhism" is raised as your resort, the Vajrayanists all turn skeptical a la Gregory Schopen as to the provenance of the Nikayas and Agamas? The wildest conspiracy theory I've seen coming out of that camp (Schopen and some Vajrayanists in Singapore) was to allege that the "Hinayana" had a grand exercise to levellise all their texts to defend against Mahayana incursion; that's Schopen's feeble attempt to explain the correspondences and parallels between the Pali Nikayas and Sanskrit Agamas.

I saw the same sort of annoyance creep into Bhante Hui Feng here, when he complained about Gombrich being only interested in "PTS Buddhism".